Eg app-foo/baz ~amd64 on an amd64 machine just looks untidy, since we've been recommended for ages simply to use the cat/pkg-name (+ ver if we want it) and leave off default arch. It makes it trickier to spot unusual settings.
(In reply to comment #0) > on an amd64 machine just looks untidy, since we've been recommended for ages > simply to use the cat/pkg-name (+ ver if we want it) and leave off default > arch. I don't know who's recommended that to you but it's plain wrong; explicit ACCEPT_KEYWORDS is not a bug.
Jakub-- I never said it was incorrect. That's why this was an enhancement request. The point is the architecture specification there is redundant. The exact same masking as: cat-foo/pkg-bar ~amd64 is achieved with: cat-foo/pkg-bar in package.keywords on an amd64 machine. All I want is for the script to do what a user would do, and thus keep the file as cruft-free as possible. Don't get me wrong: this is a minor enhancement, but it would make autounmask just about perfect imo. It's not an actual bug in the functionality.
Eh, I really fail to see how specifying accepted keywords counts as 'cruft'. The 'implicit' behaviour doesn't make sense and should be nuked from portage.
(In reply to comment #3) > Eh, I really fail to see how specifying accepted keywords counts as 'cruft'. If it's redundant, it's cruft. If I wanted an x86-only package it would make sense for me to specify x86 or ~x86 as required. > The 'implicit' behaviour doesn't make sense and should be nuked from portage. > Eh? It makes perfect sense: unstable on current architecture. This makes it far easier to copy a world file to another machine, as well as being cleaner. Why do you say it should be nuked? It's hardly causing user confusion.. I look forward to the GLEP :p
Hmm. I could make this an option but I'm not sure if it's handy for the user to have just another parameter to type in every time. A configuration file also seems overkill to me. What's your thought on this Steve?
(In reply to comment #5) > Hmm. I could make this an option but I'm not sure if it's handy for the user to > have just another parameter to type in every time. A configuration file also > seems overkill to me. > > What's your thought on this Steve? > Hi Ian; I agree it doesn't need a config file or another option. I was hoping it would just be the default behaviour, tbh. (I use autounmask a lot nowadays, since it's called by update.) Is there a reason why ~arch would be preferred? I can deal with another option since my use of it is scripted (though I need to consider how we call it, since we always just use -n which might not be the best thing) if that's what you settle on (and don't mind adding it, ofc.) Thanks for the great app though; I noticed it deleted some old entries, which impressed me no end.
Retiring..
